The Rise of The American Circus 1716 – 1899
by S.L. Kotar and J.E. Gessler
Published by: McFarland Publishing
Buy it now on AMAZON
Preface
A “prominent and well known” citizen remarked yesterday he like to attend circuses, but preferred the genuine sawdust and spangles. The name of the circus is now applied to so many things that it is impossible to tell what the Mail alludes to. Every demonstrative exhibition from a political row to a religious revival, is now called a circus. It is no new thing to say all the world’s a stage and all the men and women are actors.
The opening sentence of Chapter 1 is actually an interrogative: When did the circus become a circus? A more perplexing question would be, “What is a circus?” On the face of it, both would seen to be more uncomplicated and easy to answer. The circus began in Ancient Rome, with lions pitted against Christians (if not the earliest attractions, then certainly the most infamous). And a circus is performers under the Big Top, with white-faced, red nosed clowns; acrobats on the high-wire, and brightly attired men and scantily-clad women balancing on the backs of magnificent steeds. Into the mix are thrown bearded ladies and strong men, alongside “freaks” of nature; lion tamers directing ferocious beasts through hoops; and exotic animals prancing, dancing and snarling, all under the direction of a top-hatted ringmaster.
Conjuring up an image of the early days, one might describe a circus as having three rings, and smelling of sawdust, cotton candy and popcorn, where spectators sat on benches running around the near-continual entertainment. Children pulled up canvas flaps to watch for free; women fainted from the sight of seeing the snap of pointed teeth narrowly miss the trainer’s arm, and men applauded the marksmanship of a sharpshooter or the prowess of a knife thrower.
What these descriptions really are is part myth, part reality. The truth is wider, more complex and even more controversial. But what would you expect from the world’s most majestic form of live entertainment?
There are no easy answers to the first question – even historians do not agree. Some authorities incorporate or discount the Bread and Circuses era; others divide “ancient” (in this case, 18th century Europe) form “modern” (mid-19th century America). Several touch in Philip Astley, the Father of the Circus – unless they are a stickler for terms, in which case Charles Hughes and Charles Dibdin get credit for popularizing the word and thus the circus – but concentrate on the development in the United States.
As for what precisely constitutes a circus, authorities become more specific yet find less common ground. There are those who do not include traveling menageries, arguing that a display of animals without equestrian acts and gymnastics cannot rightly fit the bill. Purists discount from their definition circus-like performances enacted in theaters, hippodromes and music halls, as they do not have the proper buildings or structure. Most disqualify the truly American Wild West Shows and single-artist acts.
Our purpose in writing this book is not to argue the definition or present a monograph of the circus, which, by itself, borders on the impossible. Scant first-hand material exists for the early American pioneers; what is left to the historian are brief newspaper notices, scraps of letters and vague personal accounts. Later, in the era of the newspaper, reports from exchanges (newspapers copying stories from other newspapers) provided more detail but offering confused or omitted dates. Worse, copy was occasionally “made up” by the pen of enterprising advertising men (Baby eaten by Lion!!”), or by editors accepting on face value the worth of a show in exchange for advertising dollars (“A Superb Entertainment Never Equaled in the Annals of the Circus!”). Reminiscences by old-timers faded with the years, and autobiographies tended to be self-serving. Rather, we are interested in the shape and substance of an entertainment form: how the circus, by any name (amphitheatre, hippodrome, grove, company, menagerie, wild animal park) or association of concepts, evolved. We sought to introduce the men and women who were an integral part of the beginning and development through the 19th century. We are interested in the human stories, the innovations, creations, successes, failures, profits and losses of what is loosely called the Circus.
Instead of confining ourselves to any strict interpretation, we sought answers that bring together the whole: Who was Astley, so often mentioned when referencing immigrant performers in the United States? What was a “master” taught and how did he learn the tricks of the trade? How – and why – were pantomimes used; why were dramatic scenes played and what topics did they cover? Why did dramatics disappear and what replace them? Where did the wild animals come from, how were they transported to the States, and who trained them? Why did the well-established art from alter when it came across the Atlantic Ocean? And what did it metamorphose into?
Those questions beg others. Where did the exotic beasts snarling from behind iron bars originate and how were they treated? What happened to circus animals too old to perform? Who cared for child performers, and what about stories of boys running away to join the circus and young women eloping with circus performers? What games did the sideshow gamblers use, and how did they manage to cheat the unwary?
With that end in mind, we begin this book with the earliest Englishmen who assembled minstrels, contortionists, ropewalkers, actors and equestrians on the stage. Providing a background of who they were, we trace their actions, detailing their unique problems and working through their trials and errors. Along the way we introduce the acts, performers, sights, smells, language and feel of the evolving British art form that would eventually become the backbone of the American Circus.
With that background, it is easier to comprehend why riding schools grew into equestrian shows, elaborate buildings gave way to tents, and how American tastes dictated the abandonment of dramatic acts and encouraged the merger of full-scale menageries into the circus bill.
Amid the facts, figures, cast lists and traveling schedules is an amazing human story: men and women who sought to earn their living entertaining the public. Some were highly talented horsemen, ever seeing to amaze by “tricks” of bareback riding, swooping, juggling, precision formations, balancing and speed. Others utilized their skills by making audiences laugh; still others walked on ropes, performed feats of strength, displayed magic, imitated the calls of birds, or twisted themselves into knots. Theirs was an ever-changing, day-to-day struggle. Often they were criticized for their itinerant lifestyle, taxed by eager municipalities, lauded as marvels and critiqued as frauds. Some were even drawn to the circus as contract players or independent associates, using the free publicity to draw crowds who might pay an extra quarter to watch them ascend in their hot air or rarefied air balloons.
When life was good, it was very good, and proprietors took in unprecedented sums and lived high lives. The clever reinvested their profits in more elaborate structures, better acts, gaudier costumes. Later in the century, as audiences became more familiar and thus less inspired by the tried and true, operators joined forces, presenting two and sometimes half a dozen established circuses for the price of one. Menageries, once a mainstay of more puritan patrons, eventually were incorporated into the equestrian and clown acts, bringing the whole into line with what is now considered the circus.
When life was bad, it was very bad. The small “horse and pony” shows were relegated to small towns and finally driven into extinction. Laws were passed prohibiting “immoral” performances; taxes grew by leaps and bounds. Moving the entire apparatus from city to city after a night or a week, first by road and water and then by train, was expensive and dangerous. More than one tragedy occurred when elephants refused to cross rivers, or bridges collapsed under their weight. Downturns in the economy and war limited money for entertainment. Inspired managers died and the mantle turned over to less capable hands.
Yet the circus persisted. Men, women and children – for “infants” were an integral part of the 1700 and 1800s circus – refused to give up their way of life. And audiences, who needed a chance to witness the awe and wonder of the unimaginable, and to steal an hour or two from their daily grind to laugh at the antics of clowns, remained faithful. This unique affinity has lasted through the centuries, amid all the modern electronic devices, from film and television to the Internet and iPods.
We hope we have succeeded in meshing the significant with the trivial, the exciting with the mundane, while along the route fleshing out and giving life to this enduring art form. And along the way perhaps we have discovered the answer to the question of what really constitutes a circus. It is that which is in the eye of the beholder: the orb of an eight-year-old with the grin of an eighty-eight-year -old.